I was thinkin the other day...., Rock throw Finger prints??? Options

[RedRatSnake]

Hi


Thats ok

Hey if anyone has questions about Monkeys throwing ____ at them i would be happy to tell ya what the impact and feeling is like

Peace
Tim

[RogerKni]

If a fingerprint were found, its inhumanly large size would mean it couldn't be an accidental human print, but either authentic or a fairly elaborate hoax. So fingerprints would be helpful to obtain.

Presumably this object-throwing behavior originated for use against members of its own species, as among chimps. If so, it would not necessarily have developed with a view to accuracy, but to intimidation. The low frequency of hits thus isn't suspicious.

John Green's Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us described a report of a four-pound rock being thrown (p. 46). Several of these instances seemingly were aimed at chasing people away. On p. 203 a report described a Sas throwing dirt through a car window. A report on p. 315 described being nearly hit by a thrown stone. In a summary of his statistics on p. 338 he wrote:

There are ten reports of Sasquatches throwing things at people, rocks on eight occasions and other objects twice. That doesn't cover all the reports of things being thrown, only things being thrown apparently at a human target. In the only instance where anyone reported being hit by a rock (but not hurt), the Sasquatch was not seen until afterwards.

Bindernagel described rock-throwing by Sasquatches on pages 115-20. Here's are some relevant quotes:

P. 115: Long ago, John Green set himself rigorous standards for the inclusion of reports in his files. In particular, he did not file reports of unusual events in which a sasquatch sighting or track was not reported. Because of this ... reports went unrecorded.

P. 116: Since 1991, many reports of stone-throwing have surfaced and I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to assign this apparent intimidation behavior to wildlife species other than sasquatches.

[Violet]

If a fingerprint were found, its inhumanly large size would mean it couldn't be an accidental human print, but either authentic or a fairly elaborate hoax. So fingerprints would be helpful to obtain.

It would certainly be an interesting experiment to try.
Granted, faking a fingerprint is not a very difficult thing to do. Heck, a person could use a big toe as a 'template" to make a large print. But someone would have to be really determined to fool BF researchers in order to bother doing it. Not that some jokester out there wouldn't think of trying.
I would be immediately suspicious of any object that wasn't collected in the field by myself or someone I trusted, under circumstances that indicate the object wasn't planted by someone.

Gads....the more I learn, the trickier the matter of gathering BF evidence gets!

[Drew]

Toss is friendly Throw is Aggression

I guess it depends what your tossing, doesn't it?

Someone tossing a Grenade at your foxhole doesn't exactly exude friendliness

[Teresa]

Well thank the heavens bigfoot species isn't known for lobbing hand grenades. If i were going to use a hand grenade though I wouldn't toss it. I'd throw that sucker just as far away from where I was going to be when it went off as possible! Horse shoes are "tossed" salads are "tossed"

two pennies don't get ya much anymore.

[RedRatSnake]

I guess it depends what your tossing, doesn't it?

Someone tossing a Grenade at your foxhole doesn't exactly exude friendliness

Hi

I was listening to the Robert Morgan show one night and he was talking about BF and rock tossing, He had a very good point when he said, If a rock comes into your camp and you suspect it is a BF, Tossing the rock back would be an ok sign that your not aggressive, If you raise your arm to throw the rock, The BF will take that as a threat and move on,

Peace
Tim

[longtabber PE]

From the book

>>>P. 115: Long ago, John Green set himself rigorous standards for the inclusion of reports in his files. In particular, he did not file reports of unusual events in which a sasquatch sighting or track was not reported. Because of this ... reports went unrecorded.

How is this "rigorous"- its speculative. So, every strange event where there is a sighting or track defaults to a BF?

>>>P. 116: Since 1991, many reports of stone-throwing have surfaced and I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to assign this apparent intimidation behavior to wildlife species other than sasquatches.

I'm more interested in how he ascribed this "behavior" TO a BF.

And people wonder.......

[RogerKni]

From the book

>>>P. 115: Long ago, John Green set himself rigorous standards for the inclusion of reports in his files. In particular, he did not file reports of unusual events in which a sasquatch sighting or track was not reported. Because of this ... reports went unrecorded.

How is this "rigorous"- its speculative. So, every strange event where there is a sighting or track defaults to a BF?

It's relatively rigorous. He excluded rock-throwing reports that lacked corroborative evidence. It wasn't absolutely rigorous in refusing to credit a witness lacking absolute proof that his encounter was real. E.g., unless he had an affidavit signed by the Bigfoot that he'd thrown the rock.

It is not "speculative"--it's inferential. And such inferences are a normal part of science and of critical thinking in general. Science is no more a mass of "just the facts" than a house is a pile of bricks. A house is held together by theory (its overall coherence) and inference (the mortar). In other words, at many points in sciences that are not as "hard" as chemistry and physics, like field biology, there are implicit inferences made. A large "bed" found in gorilla's territory is inferred to be used for sleeping by a gorilla. (That's so short a leap it hardly counts--but it's an inference nevertheless.) A newly recorded wood-tapping pattern and bird-cry that matches the unique taps and cries of Ivory Bill woodpeckers (before they went extinct) can reasonably be inferred to be that of the same species. It's not proof, but it deserves to be taken seriously as possibly or probably being true. It's not "rigorous" but irrational to insist that such evidence means nothing because it hasn't been proved.

If the cry and the wood taps were recorded concurrently, that makes it less likely that either was a mere anomaly. The presence of each strengthens the credibility of the other, because it's less likely that two mutually supporting anomalies would have occurred at the same time by chance.

In the same way, if a BF witness (or "reporting person," or RP) claims that his encounter included several elements that other witnesses have reported, such as a terrible odor, a screech, a thrown rock, and a footprint, the context of these strange elements occurring together strengthens the entire report. (Or at least they did when Green was collecting reports, before knowledge of the pattern of a typical encounter report became widely publicized.) The default should not be to say that, since each odd element can be explained away in isolation from its context, the parsimonious thing to do would be to dismiss the entire report. That's "irrational rationalism"--i.e., scofticism.

>>>P. 116: Since 1991, many reports of stone-throwing have surfaced and I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to assign this apparent intimidation behavior to wildlife species other than sasquatches.

I'm more interested in how he ascribed this "behavior" TO a BF.

It's by the same method of "indirect proof," or exclusion of the absurd and impossible, that is commonly employed in logic, math, science, and detective work. (I'll spare you the well-known quote from Sherlock Holmes.) It's what Bill Munns is employing in his analysis of the PGF. E.g., if a suit can be ruled out, or anyway shown to be unlikely, then a creature is, indirectly, ruled in, or shown to be more likely. Likewise, if no known animal throws stones, then some unknown animal is (possibly or probably) throwing stones.

And people wonder.......

Save it for JREF.

[jimf]

In the same way, if a BF witness (or "reporting person," or RP) claims that his encounter included several elements that other witnesses have reported, such as a terrible odor, a screech, a thrown rock, and a footprint, the context of these strange elements occurring together strengthens the entire report. (Or at least they did when Green was collecting reports, before knowledge of the pattern of a typical encounter report became widely publicized.) The default should not be to say that, since each odd element can be explained away in isolation from its context, the parsimonious thing to do would be to dismiss the entire report. That's "irrational rationalism"--i.e., scofticism.

You've apparently never investigated a Bigfoot report. Many of the fake reports include not just one, but several details , that can be found in other reports or single one's that are reported and merged into a Bigfoot collage in an attempt to make the report "seem" more real or viable to a bad investigator or people who want to beleive just a little to badly based on their opinion and not what the facts) or lack of) represent.


And seriously dude. loose the constant "scoftic" remark it does nothing but make you sound like you have no critical thinking skill, and fall back on that as a psychological ploy when anything else you've presented is lacking.

[RedRatSnake]

the parsimonious thing to do would be to dismiss the entire report.

Hi

Just wanted to help out here, Pretty big word i had to look it up, ( parsimonious )

excessively unwilling to spend; "parsimonious thrift relieved by few generous impulses"; "lived in a most penurious manner--denying himself every indulgence"

And some stuff about being stingy, (characterized by or showing parsimony; frugal or stingy. )

parsimonious was Word of the Day on October 1, 2002. http://dictionary.reference.com/wordofthed...2002/10/01.html



Peace
Tim

[RogerKni]

You've apparently never investigated a Bigfoot report. Many of the fake reports include not just one, but several details , that can be found in other reports or single one's that are reported and merged into a Bigfoot collage in an attempt to make the report "seem" more real or viable to a bad investigator or people who want to believe just a little to badly based on their opinion and not what the facts) or lack of) represent.

I realize that. That's why I stated,:

the context of these strange elements occurring together strengthens the entire report. (Or at least they did when Green was collecting reports, before knowledge of the pattern of a typical encounter report became widely publicized.)

And seriously dude, lose the constant "scoftic" remark

Until 2008, I was pretty sparing in my use of scofticism. Your claiming that I use it constantly is false--it's merely a sneer.

it does nothing but make you sound like

"Make you sound like" implies that it sounds that way to everyone, and that you're speaking for some sort of silent majority here. I doubt it--and I think it's magnificently presumptuous of you to say so. As for what it makes me sound like TO YOU, or to a scoftic, why should I care?

you have no critical thinking skill,

Was it your wonderful critical thinking skill that led you to ignore my inconvenient qualification above?

and fall back on that as a psychological ploy when anything else you've presented is lacking.

I do not throw the term scoftic around as a mere "boo-word" when I have no argumentative substance. That's what scoftics wish were the case. Nor do I usually employ it as a direct attack on some other poster. (The exchange here is an exception.) Rather, I usually employ it in an educational sense, when illustrating argumentative tactics that are part of movement-Skepticism's bag of tricks. In my post above, I stated that the attempt to rule out indirect proof is "irrational rationalism," which it is. (That was Robert Anton Wilson's term for the phenomenon. I like my briefer neologism, scofticism.) Most "skeptical" criticism of Bigfootery is foolish (irrational), knavish, or both, and deserves to be exposed for what it is--scoffing in sophistical disguise. This exposure is more important than anything to do with Bigfoot.

[longtabber PE]

Roger, I'm going to be polite but firm and simply give you a REALITY CHECK and a short primer on how REAL science and REAL investigations work.

>>>It's relatively rigorous. He excluded rock-throwing reports that lacked corroborative evidence. It wasn't absolutely rigorous in refusing to credit a witness lacking absolute proof that his encounter was real. E.g., unless he had an affidavit signed by the Bigfoot that he'd thrown the rock.

Its ABSURD, UNPROFESSIONAL, UNSCIENTIFIC and downright HEARSAY( and in certain circumstances would even be CRIMINAL) is what it is. The ONLY thing that would "corroborate" a report of a BF throwing an object is either.
1) SEEING the BF throw the rock
2) having a rock with DEFINITIVE PROOF on it that can be traced back to a BF

All the rest of that "excuse" is simply wishful thinking trying to turn junk science into the real thing. If I tried to present such a thing to a scientific body, I would be blackballed.

Thats like me taking a report of hearing a GUNSHOT and finding an ARROW leading to the discovery of a STEAK in a grocery store ( dead cow) and ARRESTING you for MURDER as a result. ( after all, according to this new standard of "relatively rigorous" method documented in the BF science course- I have a report of violence, I have a weapon, I have a dead body and a suspect and it all "fits" into my belief. Lets go to trial) On second thought, Mike Nifong actually DID that when he prosecuted Lax players for a false rape claim. ( look what happened there) OK, so maybe that is the standard in BF science and Durham NC but not in the rest of the world.

>>>It is not "speculative"--it's inferential. And such inferences are a normal part of science and of critical thinking in general. Science is no more a mass of "just the facts" than a house is a pile of bricks. A house is held together by theory (its overall coherence) and inference (the mortar). In other words, at many points in sciences that are not as "hard" as chemistry and physics, like field biology, there are implicit inferences made.

Its junk is what it is! In science, one doesnt infer unless there is EVIDENCE ( something tangible or specifically relative) that its probable. Just like in your example above- suppose the "house" in question was made of WOOD and thus no bricks or mortar. ( see how that works?) Things have to be defined in terms and linked- not ASSumed for assumptions sake.

>>>A large "bed" found in gorilla's territory is inferred to be used for sleeping by a gorilla. (That's so short a leap it hardly counts--but it's an inference nevertheless.)

Thats a decent analogy because gorillas are KNOWN to exist,make beds etc and if such a bed big enough to be used by a gorilla in an area they were KNOWN to be in- thats logical

>>>A newly recorded wood-tapping pattern and bird-cry that matches the unique taps and cries of Ivory Bill woodpeckers (before they went extinct) can reasonably be inferred to be that of the same species.

Thats ABSURD,(Paredolia actually) because unless the IBW has a DISTINCTIVE "tap"- it cannot be reasonably attributed to it alone. ( define a metric by which one birds "tap" can be distinguished from another- or from a hammer tapping a tree for that matter)

>>>It's not proof, but it deserves to be taken seriously as possibly or probably being true. It's not "rigorous" but irrational to insist that such evidence means nothing because it hasn't been proved.

Whats irrational ( and downright FOOLISH) is to take anecdotal evidence which can have 10,000 DIFFERENT explanations and zero in on ONE simply because it fits an individual worldview ( and excluding all others)

>>>In the same way, if a BF witness (or "reporting person," or RP) claims that his encounter included several elements that other witnesses have reported, such as a terrible odor, a screech, a thrown rock, and a footprint, the context of these strange elements occurring together strengthens the entire report.

Is that like the "context" of saying that since a jet and a helicopter have wings- they must be birds? Or the direct context of since birds build nests- thats "proof" they have the ability to use tools and employ complex analytical thinking skills?

>>>It's not "rigorous" but irrational to insist that such evidence means nothing because it hasn't been proved.

Its even MORE irrational to "infer" that such that such "evidence" points to a specific conclusion that cannot be DIRECTLY linked to the body of evidence.( kinda like Nifong and the Duke case- the alleged victim HAD DNA present[ from several men] and it did NOT match ANY of the 46 tested but lets charge 3 of them anyway because he "believed" her story)

>>>The default should not be to say that, since each odd element can be explained away in isolation from its context, the parsimonious thing to do would be to dismiss the entire report. That's "irrational rationalism"--i.e., scofticism.

Quite the CONTRARY. Thats called the process of TESTING and elimination.( thats how the TRUTH is derived and FACT is separated from FICTION) Do you really want to do a line by line dissection of "irrational rationalalism" as its used specifically in BF "science"? OOPs, wait a minute- I guess that really IS "blood" in the creek and that really IS a gunshot wound. Call the DA and lets put Gimlin on trial so he can "have his day in court" and prove his innocence. After all, the body of evidence as presented "fits" the theme of the report so it "must" be true. ( why would we want to throw out such a report that contains so much "evidence" that supports the conclusion?- it does look like blood, it does look like a possible wound, those do look like backhoe marks etc- it has to be correct)

"DAMN the investigation- full speed to the COURTROOM" ( reminds me of Nifong again- those time stamped pictures dont matter, the witnesses establishing alibis dont matter- I have a victim)

>>>It's by the same method of "indirect proof," or exclusion of the absurd and impossible, that is commonly employed in logic, math, science, and detective work.

Oh BULLSH#T!!!!!! ( you do realize you are talking to a former INVESTIGATOR and scientist who has done this in the REAL world?)

>>>It's what Bill Munns is employing in his analysis of the PGF. E.g., if a suit can be ruled out, or anyway shown to be unlikely, then a creature is, indirectly, ruled in, or shown to be more likely. Likewise, if no known animal throws stones, then some unknown animal is (possibly or probably) throwing stones.

LOL, heres how this really works. There are 2 possible facts

1) patty is a suit
2) patty is an animal
Theres no 3rd option. The evidence available is not capable of making an accurate determination of #1. So one now must look at all the ancillary evidence and make a reasonable determination on the total body of evidence. ( like your rocks, how did you EXCLUDE the possibility of the witness lying or being mistaken? this rock being thrown by a HUMAN or kicked up by a vehicle UNSEEN to the witness? fall out of a tree?) you see how that works? You cant cherry pick the answers you want unless and until you examine ALL possibilities and systematically eliminate ( or not) them individually. Whatever is left ( ALL of them) becomes the basis of the functional theory(s)

>>>Save it for JREF

Is your position so weak that it cannot withstand the methods and scrutiny of the same "science" you claim to use to support it? Or do you just want to hear what you want to hear? I have effectively dissected your position with REAL science- can you do the same with mine? ( if not, prehaps you would profit by doing some introspection on how you derived your conclusions)

>>>I do not throw the term scoftic around as a mere "boo-word" when I have no argumentative substance. That's what scoftics wish were the case. Nor do I usually employ it as a direct attack on some other poster. (The exchange here is an exception.) Rather, I usually employ it in an educational sense, when illustrating argumentative tactics that are part of movement-Skepticism's bag of tricks.

Since thats directed to me specifically( based on your own admission in parentheses) and is by YOUR words a "direct attack"- allow me to fire back.

Your use of the term scoftic is unsupported by fact, ad hom, indicative of a complete and total misunderstanding of all things science and the ramblings of a fool. Your reasoning is fatally flawed at EVERY level. Your "facts" are not. Your deductions are bogus and unsupported and the entire premise of your argument is based in FANTASY. If you ever wonder how and why BF "science" is in the gutter and has the WELL EARNED reputation of same- refer to this post.

>>>Most "skeptical" criticism of Bigfootery is foolish (irrational), knavish, or both, and deserves to be exposed for what it is--scoffing in sophistical disguise. This exposure is more important than anything to do with Bigfoot.

OOOOOOOOOOOOk- for every action, theres an equal and opposite reaction. ( let me reword your statement as a counter argument)

ALL "anecdotal" blind acceptance of the "facts" in bigfootery is foolish ( irrational),knavish or both and deserves to be exposed for what it is-- kool aid drinking by disguising pseudo and junk science as the real thing. This exposure is equally more important than anything to do with BF.

[StacyInMI]

Excellent post, Longtabber. I ripped off a quote for my new sig line.

[jimf]

Was it your wonderful critical thinking skill that led you to ignore my inconvenient qualification above?

Ok lets look at your supposed disclaimer then for a minute. Which I didn't ignore, but you seem to think that I did.

(Or at least they did when Green was collecting reports, before knowledge of the pattern of a typical encounter report became widely publicized.)

What criteria are you using to determine even your disclaimer, do you have a specific date in mind? And since it's your own argument that you're trying to save without the supportive facts to back it up, how are you determining when something became common knowledge regarding alleged Bigfoot incidents?

Are you going by the criteria of Pre-1970 reports ? Earlier? Or basing it on published works alone by Green and others ?
You have to keep in mind that several of the reports at that time that are published in both the Media and book format came in through written correspondence ( mail service) as is noted at several points in the published material throughout the books.

So no, Roger I didn't ignore it at all. On your part it's just a very weak argument , and one that you've made before ( more than once) when the facts you attempt to introduce do not fit the facts or reality of what really occurred or what was actually written in the text. That's one of the reasons you are supposed to , for the sake of clarity, quote the entire text and bold the parts that you take issue with. It helps to keep it grounded in truthfulness and in context.

Until 2008, I was pretty sparing in my use of scofticism. Your claiming that I use it constantly is false--it's merely a sneer.

Using the search on the forum and eliminating the last six months from the equation indicates that you used the word or a derivative of it ( Scoff/scoftic etc.) for nearly four pages worth of posts. Hardly sparing usage at all by my count. That's also not including the base word of skeptic or skepticism that you tried to derive scoftic from which was used in a negative fashion toward counter arguments when your attempted facts could not be supported.

"Make you sound like" implies that it sounds that way to everyone, and that you're speaking for some sort of silent majority here. I doubt it--and I think it's magnificently presumptuous of you to say so.

Could you point out where exactly I said I spoke for anyone else but myself? I think it's magnificently preposterous of you to infer that my words stated I did or ever have.

As for what it makes me sound like TO YOU, or to a scoftic, why should I care?

Sooo glad we have you arguing for the pro-Bigfoot side of things. Were you not the one who brought it up in the first place ? So if I'm understanding this sentence right , your musing are only for those who "believe " both what you write as factual or in the reality of Bigfoot already? See Roger two can play at the word game as you did above. In this case it would look like I'm assuming that is what you meant , but in my case I'm basing it on what you actually wrote in reply, instead of what I wanted it to mean because I had a weak argument.

I do not throw the term scoftic around as a mere "boo-word" when I have no argumentative substance. That's what scoftics wish were the case. Nor do I usually employ it as a direct attack on some other poster. (The exchange here is an exception.) Rather, I usually employ it in an educational sense, when illustrating argumentative tactics that are part of movement-Skepticism's bag of tricks. In my post above, I stated that the attempt to rule out indirect proof is "irrational rationalism," which it is. (That was Robert Anton Wilson's term for the phenomenon. I like my briefer neologism, scofticism.)

Uh, Pretty much, yeah you do. See above regarding nearly 4 pages of usage or it's like. Or use the search function yourself and verify what I said was accurate and factual. I think you'll find that it is.

Most "skeptical" criticism of Bigfootery is foolish (irrational), knavish, or both, and deserves to be exposed for what it is--scoffing in sophistical disguise. This exposure is more important than anything to do with Bigfoot.

Regarding the bolded part, ( See? To keep it in context with the entire sentence. ) Isn't what you're doing the exact same thing , just on the pro-side of Bigfoot ? You can call me skeptical, "scofftical" or lump me ( or anyone) in wherever you want , but the truth of it is that there are a great many reports and other evidence ( term used loosely) that does not stand up in a lot of cases to even the most cursory scrutiny when it is looked at. That has been proven time and again by Tube, Wolftrax, Desertyeti and several others that have dared to look at the so called evidence or experiment with the parameters and likelihood of it being factual.

So that being the case should the opposite of "scofftic" be : Intellectual bullshitter? Because for most of what you are arguing for it fits.

And regarding the original intent/ question of this thread to try and keep things somewhat on topic. I know of only one person who has asked/attempted to lift prints from an alleged rock incident. I do not think it worked though, which still leaves the matter at ground zero as far as value other than interesting or one more thing in a great many "possibles" or "could be " category with no facts or proof to back it up.

[ThisIsJack]

"The perfect is the enemy of the good."

[Bitter Monk]

Good will never be good enough.

[bipedalist]

Put your best bigfoot forward and may the best team win

[ThisIsJack]

Good will never be good enough.

The demand for perfection will not allow the progress allowed for in the pursuit of the good.
What you and I both do is not worthless because it is not yet proof.
And when we do have that proof, what is now dismissed by some will be properly re-evaluated and reconsidered as to its relevance in on-going studies.

[RogerKni]

Roger, I'm going to be polite but firm and simply give you a REALITY CHECK and a short primer on how REAL science and REAL investigations work.

>>>It's relatively rigorous. He excluded rock-throwing reports that lacked corroborative evidence. It wasn't absolutely rigorous in refusing to credit a witness lacking absolute proof that his encounter was real. E.g., unless he had an affidavit signed by the Bigfoot that he'd thrown the rock.

Its ABSURD, UNPROFESSIONAL, UNSCIENTIFIC and downright HEARSAY( and in certain circumstances would even be CRIMINAL) is what it is. The ONLY thing that would "corroborate" a report of a BF throwing an object is either.
1) SEEING the BF throw the rock
2) having a rock with DEFINITIVE PROOF on it that can be traced back to a BF

You’ve twisted my words. I didn’t make as strong a claim as you implied. I didn’t say that a witness’s saying that he saw a rock thrown in conjunction with his finding a footprint “corroborated a report”—i.e., provided proof. That’s your strawman. I said he had “corroborative evidence”—which didn’t imply proof, but merely evidence that strengthened his other evidence. IOW, in most cases of a thrown rock there would be a mundane explanation: a prankster, a recreational rock-thrower, even a rock deposited long ago in a tree by a volcano falling to earth. But if the thrown-rock occurred in conjunction with a sighting or footprint find, that strengthens the likelihood of its being connected with that occurrence.

All the rest of that "excuse" is simply wishful thinking trying to turn junk science into the real thing. If I tried to present such a thing to a scientific body, I would be blackballed.

I believe that such inferences are common in scientific work, at least when the conclusion drawn seems reasonable, and the inferential leap is small. But larger leaps are common in fields where there is little data and no way of conducting experiments, as when dealing with distant objects and the distant past. Scientific publications on matters like the Big Bang, the extinction of megafauna in North America 13,000 years ago, global warming, and evolution by natural selection, all make large inferential leaps. They are not thereby excluded from publication in scientific journals. Leading-edge scientific consensus in such fields is not a matter of absolute proof, but probable opinion—and even speculative opinion.

From what I’ve seen of scientific papers, there is a Findings section that sticks to the facts, and then a Discussion section that infers, or logically connects, or speculates, or does all three, as to the meaning of the findings. IOW, there’s not such a tight inferential linkage between the evidence and the conclusions as you assert. There’s a good deal of subjectivity and "slack" involved. Here’s a quote that supports my position:

Research findings do not prove conclusions. At best, they support conclusions. Research findings do not speak for themselves. Researchers must always interpret the meaning of their findings, and all findings can be interpreted in more than one way. Thus, researchers’ findings should not be treated as demonstrated “truths.”

That’s like me taking a report of hearing a GUNSHOT and finding an ARROW leading to the discovery of a STEAK in a grocery store ( dead cow) and ARRESTING you for MURDER as a result. (after all, according to this new standard of "relatively rigorous" method documented in the BF science course- I have a report of violence, I have a weapon, I have a dead body and a suspect and it all "fits" into my belief. Lets go to trial)

Another strawman. I didn’t claim that a report like the one I cited provides proof; and furthermore I don’t think that a thousand such reports provide proof, or anything near it. (Indeed, once past a certain point, the more reports there are, the less convincing they are collectively, because such frequent sightings imply that there should be more evidence of their existence in the form of spoor, photos, etc.)

I.e., I don’t think we believers have enough to “go to trial” with. But we do have enough to meet a lower bar: there’s enough evidence to warrant a publicly funded investigation, similar to the investigation last year in Arkansas to try to confirm the existence of the Ivory Bill woodpecker. In my past posts, made before you joined, I’ve stated more than once that we believers have only got 20% of the way to proof, and that all we can claim at this point is that there’s enough smoke to justify checking for a fire.

>>>It is not "speculative"--it's inferential. And such inferences are a normal part of science and of critical thinking in general. Science is no more a mass of "just the facts" than a house is a pile of bricks. A house is held together by theory (its overall coherence) and inference (the mortar). In other words, at many points in sciences that are not as "hard" as chemistry and physics, like field biology, there are implicit inferences made.

It’s junk is what it is! In science, one doesn’t infer unless there is EVIDENCE (something tangible or specifically relative) that it’s probable. Just like in your example above--suppose the "house" in question was made of WOOD and thus no bricks or mortar. (see how that works?) [OK—then change bricks and mortar to planks and nails—RK] Things have to be defined in terms and linked--not ASSumed for assumptions sake.

I’m not assuming, or anyway not just assuming. That is, I haven’t willfully, arbitrarily, and baselessly come to a conclusion. Instead, I think the existence of several cases where witnesses have reported stone throwing in conjunction with a sighting are unlikely to all be due to coincidence or fraud or incompetence--especially not cases in which investigators have vetted the reporting persons to some degree and not found them seemingly credible. There’s enough to warrant a more intense investigation of the matter—a funded investigation.

There are degrees of tightness between the evidence and the inferences that are made from them. In “frontier science,” where not all the evidence is in, where the validity, quality, and meaning of the evidence is disputed, where lab testing is impossible (or anyway limited), fairly large, tentative inferential leaps must be made. Numerous conflicting theories of the causes of various diseases, for instance, are propounded and argued in this manner. There are many schools of thought on such matters. None of them are unscientific just because they aren’t airtight. Only well-established textbook science, or scientific journals in fairly settled fields, and fields where certain knowledge is obtainable, hew closely to air-tightness.

>>>A large "bed" found in gorilla's territory is inferred to be used for sleeping by a gorilla. (That's so short a leap it hardly counts--but it's an inference nevertheless.)

That’s a decent analogy because gorillas are KNOWN to exist, make beds etc and if such a bed big enough to be used by a gorilla in an area they were KNOWN to be in--that’s logical.

That’s only the first step away from certainty on a continuum that has many gradations of increasing uncertainty. All such inferences are respectable, provided they don’t label themselves as proof, but rather indicate their degree of uncertainty by using terms commonly found in scientific writing like “suggestive evidence” or even a mere “puzzling anomaly.” They are not utterly dismissible just because they aren’t proof, which is the essence of your argument—and a key scoftical dogma. (It’s the hidden trickery involved in the “extraordinary evidence” dogma: All evidence that doesn’t amount to proof therefore means zero and deserves no further attention. But, in cases of episodic phenomenon where investigation requires money and expertise and a social imprimatur, it’s unreasonable to demand that “the claimant” cough up proof. It’s society’s job to look into such matters, just as it’s the CDC’s job to look into claims of weird new diseases.)

For instance, if evidence for the existence of the Ivory Bill woodpecker is taken seriously and given weight, that’s a larger inferential leap than the one made about an apparent gorilla bed most likely being made by a gorilla. An Ivory Bill is a known species, but is presumed extinct. And yet it’s a respectable leap for a scientist to make—provided he remembers that he is in relativistic, probabilistic (“most likely” or “it’s possible”) terms.

A similar situation exists when the tracks of Out Of Place animals are found, such as Alien Big Cats in Britain, or Eastern Cougars.

>>>A newly recorded wood-tapping pattern and bird-cry that matches the unique taps and cries of Ivory Bill woodpeckers (before they went extinct) can reasonably be inferred to be that of the same species.

That’s ABSURD (Paredolia actually), because unless the IBW has a DISTINCTIVE "tap"- it cannot be reasonably attributed to it alone.

The IBW does have such a distinctive tap, according to the experts in the matter.

(define a metric by which one birds "tap" can be distinguished from another- or from a hammer tapping a tree for that matter)

In a sound spectrograph—which is a computer-generated snapshot of a sound showing its pitch, loudness, and duration—the double rap of a Campephilus woodpecker has a distinctive look: two sharp peaks, the first one significantly taller than the second, with a small space in between. That interval between the peaks, which averages 75 milliseconds in most species in this genus, together with the difference in intensity between the first and second rap, is what makes those double raps stand out from other sounds in the woods. True, two trees or limbs might bang together occasionally on a windy day and create a double-rap sound, but the odds are extremely low that this would produce the perfect spectrographic signature of a Campephilus woodpecker. And a gunshot looks nothing at all like a double rap on a spectrograph.

>>>It's not proof, but it deserves to be taken seriously as possibly or probably being true. It's not "rigorous" but irrational to insist that such evidence means nothing because it hasn't been proved.

What’s irrational (and downright FOOLISH) is to take anecdotal evidence which can have 10,000 DIFFERENT explanations and zero in on ONE simply because it fits an individual worldview (and excluding all others)

Name a dozen. (I.e., provide a dozen mundane explanations for an encounter with multiple reinforcing features, like a footprint and a stone-throwing.)

Then give a mundane explanation for a collection of similar reports with the same constellation of features.

If your explanation is that the witnesses are lying, mistaken, fantasizing, copying the reports they’ve read by others (unlikely in the early cases) and/or incapacitated, then provide some evidence for your claim. You have a burden of proof, if you make or imply such a claim.

To obtain such evidence, an intense investigation of the persons making reports, and the circumstances of their reports, including numerous psychological tests, would have to be performed, as Barbara Wasson urged thirty long years ago. Let the chips fall where they may. That sort of check-out is needed to get to the bottom of the mystery. Or at least to exclude a few ways of dismissing it as unreal. But it requires public funding.

>>>In the same way, if a BF witness (or "reporting person," or RP) claims that his encounter included several elements that other witnesses have reported, such as a terrible odor, a screech, a thrown rock, and a footprint, the context of these strange elements occurring together strengthens the entire report.

Is that like the "context" of saying that since a jet and a helicopter have wings- they must be birds? Or the direct context of since birds build nests- that’s "proof" they have the ability to use tools and employ complex analytical thinking skills?

Your analogy lacks any relevance. A proper analogy would be a case where a gorilla bed is found in association with gorilla poop, gorilla odor, gorilla hair, etc. Or where an Ivory Bill is heard tapping in conjunction with being heard making its distinctive call and in further conjunction with a sighting.

>>>It's not "rigorous" but irrational to insist that such evidence means nothing because it hasn't been proved.

Its even MORE irrational to "infer" that such that such "evidence" points to a specific conclusion that cannot be DIRECTLY linked to the body of evidence. (kinda like Nifong and the Duke case- the alleged victim HAD DNA present[ from several men] and it did NOT match ANY of the 46 tested but lets charge 3 of them anyway because he "believed" her story)

As I’ve said above, a direct linkage is not needed, provided all one is doing is calling for an investigation, not an indictment.

>>>The default should not be to say that, since each odd element can be explained away in isolation from its context, the parsimonious thing to do would be to dismiss the entire report. That's "irrational rationalism"--i.e., scofticism.

Quite the CONTRARY. That’s called the process of TESTING and elimination. (that’s how the TRUTH is derived and FACT is separated from FICTION)

No, it’s just “explaining away,” which ignores the context. This is a key tactic of scofticism.

Let’s say there are two witnesses to a Bigfoot who, unknown to each other, sight the animal miles or days apart and report that it had the same characteristics as regards hair color and length, height, sex, bulk, etc. Or suppose there were half a dozen witnesses to a sighting who made similar descriptions when interviewed. The similarity of their descriptions severely undercuts attempts to explain away their reports in terms of hallucinations, incapacity, lying, etc. When this context—the similarity of reports—is ignored, that’s what results in a fiction, despite your blustering capitalizations to the contrary.

Similarly, the context of numerous witness sightings “adds up”—they can’t be collectively be dismissed in the same way each individual case can be. Here’s why not:

Do you really want to do a line by line dissection of "irrational rationalism" as its used specifically in BF "science"? OOPs, wait a minute- I guess that really IS "blood" in the creek and that really IS a gunshot wound. Call the DA and lets put Gimlin on trial so he can "have his day in court" and prove his innocence. After all, the body of evidence as presented "fits" the theme of the report so it "must" be true. (why would we want to throw out such a report that contains so much "evidence" that supports the conclusion?- it does look like blood, it does look like a possible wound, those do look like backhoe marks etc- it has to be correct)

On the contrary Bigfoot science and the Bigfooter consensus has emphatically and nearly unanimously rejected MK Davis’s bloody pool and thigh-shot hypothesis—as have I. (They look spectacular, but just because something looks a certain way doesn’t mean that it is a certain way. Context must be considered, as well as more likely alternative explanations.) Scott Marlowe’s attempt to put Gimlin on trial has been even more emphatically rejected. This is just another of your strawmen—it’s unrepresentative of Bigfoot science.

>>>It's by the same method of "indirect proof," or exclusion of the absurd and impossible, that is commonly employed in logic, math, science, and detective work.

Oh BULLSH#T!!!!!! (you do realize you are talking to a former INVESTIGATOR and scientist who has done this in the REAL world?)

Euclid employed indirect reasoning, I recall. It’s recommended in guides to critical thinking like Polya’s classic How to Solve it (pages 162-171 in my edition) and Anthony Weston’s A Rulebook for Arguments. It’s such a basic and obvious device that I’m sure it’s used in science and law as well, where appropriate. For instance, it stands to reason that if the defendant’s alibi can be ruled out, that indirectly proves that he’s guilty. For example, OJ’s alibi that he owned no pair of the unusual Bruno Magli shoes, whose prints in his size were found at the murder scene, was discredited when a photo of him in them surfaced. That destroyed his credibility and established his guilt—at least beyond the 50% level required in a civil trial. (However, because legal cases involve real life, not a controlled experiment, such a conclusion isn’t airtight.) I regret that I don’t have any scientific cases handy that I can cite. I hope to bone up on this subject in time and have a better comeback.

>>>It's what Bill Munns is employing in his analysis of the PGF. E.g., if a suit can be ruled out, or anyway shown to be unlikely, then a creature is, indirectly, ruled in, or shown to be more likely. Likewise, if no known animal throws stones, then some unknown animal is (possibly or probably) throwing stones.

LOL, here’s how this really works. There are 2 possible facts

1) patty is a suit
2) patty is an animal
There’s no 3rd option. The evidence available is not capable of making an accurate determination of #1. So one now must look at all the ancillary evidence and make a reasonable determination on the total body of evidence.

Based on what you said to Munns on this matter, I infer that what you’re implying here is that, since it is theoretically out of the question for Bigfoot to exist (there’s little hard evidence, how does it survive the winter, what does it eat, why so few tracks in the snow, why aren’t there more encounters if it’s so widespread, etc.), then it doesn’t matter if Patty doesn’t look like a suit; she can be ruled out on a priori grounds.

I, personally, admit the weight of such arguments against Bigfoot’s existence. Indeed, I even posted here somewhere that if Bigfoot is confirmed, I won’t say, “I told you so,” I’ll say, “Hey wait a second, that’s impossible.” I even created a list of 23 Reasons Why Bigfoot’s Unlikely, printed it up onto double-sided business cards that I distributed at a talk I gave, and posted here. I didn’t go along with the rebuttals that were offered by believers here—I thought the collective weight of the Reasons was strong, even if each one of them wasn’t airtight.

I’m of two minds about the Bigfoot phenomenon. I can’t dismiss the objections to Bigfoot’s being real, because they seem strong, but I can’t dismiss the evidence in Bigfoot’s favor either. I think attempts by disbelievers to do so are very unconvincing. I’m on the fence, but leaning toward belief, even though it’s hard to justify.

(What I think is really going on is that the Pranksters Above are trying to rattle our cages, both believers’ and disbelievers’. My main conclusion is that the evidence justifies the establishment of a Department of Weird Things, dedicated to gathering, collecting, and critiquing such oddities. There’d be a skeptics’ wing in this department. Who knows, maybe that tail would wag the dog.)

Therefore I don’t think it’s right to give no weight to findings in favor of Patty’s authenticity. I think the honest thing to do is to admit that the phenomenon poses a real puzzle, with strong considerations on both sides. I’ve said here that I believe more in Patty than in Bigfoot, contrary to the usual believer’s position. It’s illogical, but it makes a certain amount of sense.

(like your rocks, how did you EXCLUDE the possibility of the witness lying or being mistaken? this rock being thrown by a HUMAN or kicked up by a vehicle UNSEEN to the witness? fall out of a tree?) you see how that works? You can’t cherry pick the answers you want unless and until you examine ALL possibilities and systematically eliminate (or not) them individually. Whatever is left (ALL of them) becomes the basis of the functional theory(s)

You can argue that there might well be something wrong with an individual case. But that doesn’t scale up—it’s implausible to dismiss a large collection of cases:

Accumulating [suggestive] evidence can "move the bead" along the grey scale far enough to get us close to virtual certainty. Here's a quote describing the thinking behind that assertion, found at Bobbie's site:

the null hypothesis [would dictate that] the probability is 63.4% that at least one report was produced by an honest, competent observer. Since the number of recorded observations is far greater than 100 and it is similarly doubtful that 99% of the general public are worthless interpreters, the actual probability that at least one report is valid is well over 99%.

There's another justifiable reason for believers' seemingly uncritical acceptance of wobbly evidence, which was neatly put by Green in Apes among Us, p. 236: "If one report is true it is almost certain that most of them are. ... If you find yourself forced to accept any of the reports as valid, you lose your basic reason for questioning the validity of others. … Then there is no reason to doubt that most of the people who think they have encountered one have actually done so.”

>>>Save it for JREF

Is your position so weak that it cannot withstand the methods and scrutiny of the same "science" you claim to use to support it? Or do you just want to hear what you want to hear? I have effectively dissected your position with REAL science- can you do the same with mine? (if not, perhaps you would profit by doing some introspection on how you derived your conclusions)

My comment followed your world-weary sigh of exasperation, “And people wonder.......” That posturing and attitude-striking, which you failed to quote, is what I suggested you save for JREF, its natural habitat. I wasn’t referring to your entire post, as you pretend.

>>>I do not throw the term scoftic around as a mere "boo-word" when I have no argumentative substance. That's what scoftics wish were the case. Nor do I usually employ it as a direct attack on some other poster. (The exchange here is an exception.) Rather, I usually employ it in an educational sense, when illustrating argumentative tactics that are part of movement-Skepticism's bag of tricks.

Since that’s directed to me specifically (based on your own admission in parentheses) and is by YOUR words a "direct attack"- allow me to fire back.

What I should have said was that I used it here as an attack on the arguments you employed, not on you personally. That’s all I did. (In other cases I usually employ it as an “aside,” talking in the abstract (impersonally) about positions taken by the group of scoffing skeptics I call scoftics.) I referred to your tactic of dismissing evidence without considering its context when I used that word.

Your use of the term scoftic is unsupported by fact, …

The term implies that capital-S “Skeptics” are not dedicated to truth first, but to debunking or scoffing at virtually any cost. My use of the term is well-supported by the articles I linked to a couple of weeks ago, and by the arguments of Marcello Truzzi, a CSICOP co-founder who left the organization in disgust. He also renounced the phrase he had coined, “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence,” because of the way it had been mis-employed (see my comments above on it) by what he called “pseudo-skeptics,” whom he described as scoffers, not true skeptics. I’ve just mashed together his “scoffer” with “skeptic” to produce a less unwieldy tag.

As for ad homs, scoftics have been the leaders in that regard, with numerous and frequently employed abusive terms. I’m just trying to even the balance. You guys just don’t like it when someone turns the scorn on you.

… ad hom,

Not so, it’s ad rem. It speaks to the character of the arguments, not the character of my opponent. Here’s what I said:

The default should not be to say that, since each odd element can be explained away in isolation from its context, the parsimonious thing to do would be to dismiss the entire report. That's "irrational rationalism"--i.e., scofticism.

indicative of a complete and total misunderstanding of all things science

One thing I’d really like to see would be a critique of what you scoftics imagine science to be by a panel of scientists reviewing various scoftical books and websites. Your position seems to be an uncritical scientism, which is the position that science, and only science, is entitled to speak with authority about truth. I don’t think that science has that much authority. I don’t think it has much to say about decision-making in military or legal matters, where an insistence that only evidence that had been completely validated could be given consideration would lead to disastrous outcomes. And I think your idea that science is something objective and above all inference and human foibles is unsustainable.

Unfortunately, I’m not well-read enough in the field to do a good job of this myself. And I’ve been so busy with other stuff that I haven’t been able to read most of the books I’ve bought. But I’m convinced I’m in the right by a couple I’ve dipped into, such as The Golem: What You Should Know about Science, by Harry M. Collins and Trevor Pinch. The editorial review on its Amazon page reads:

Through a series of intriguing case studies including the study of relativity, cold fusion, the "memory" in worms, and the sex life of lizards, this book debunks the view that scientific knowledge is a straightforward outcome of competent theorization, observation, and experimentation. This second edition contains a substantial new Afterword that responds to some of the criticisms made by scientists. A distinction is made between the responses of scientific fundamentalists who maintain the myth of scientific certainty and more serious-minded critics.

and the ramblings of a fool.

Tsk tsk. Persons referring this post in the future, as you suggest below, will tend to put that label on you for your mad invective, name-calling, numerous strawmen, typos galore, uncritical scientism, bombastic belligerence, etc.

Your reasoning is fatally flawed at EVERY level. Your "facts" are not. Your deductions are bogus and unsupported and the entire premise of your argument is based in FANTASY. If you ever wonder how and why BF "science" is in the gutter and has the WELL EARNED reputation of same- refer to this post.

Nurse, the cold compress.

>>>Most "skeptical" criticism of Bigfootery is foolish (irrational), knavish, or both, and deserves to be exposed for what it is--scoffing in sophistical disguise. This exposure is more important than anything to do with Bigfoot.

OOOOOOOOOOOOk- for every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction. (let me reword your statement as a counter argument)

ALL "anecdotal" blind acceptance of the "facts" in bigfootery is foolish ( irrational), knavish or both and deserves to be exposed for what it is-- kool aid drinking by disguising pseudo and junk science as the real thing. This exposure is equally more important than anything to do with BF.

Pathetic.

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Jul 13 2008, 01:43 PM

[bipedalist]

The similarity of their descriptions severely undercuts attempts to explain away their reports in terms of hallucinations, incapacity, lying, etc. When this context—the similarity of reports—is ignored, that’s what results in a fiction, despite your blustering capitalizations to the contrary.

And, lucid dreams I might add

[RedRatSnake]

Hi

We were only talking about BF Fingerprints and stuff, What happend to the little thread we had going ??

Peace
Tim

[ThisIsJack]

Your use of the term scoftic is unsupported by fact, ad hom, indicative of a complete and total misunderstanding of all things science and the ramblings of a fool. Your reasoning is fatally flawed at EVERY level. Your "facts" are not. Your deductions are bogus and unsupported and the entire premise of your argument is based in FANTASY. If you ever wonder how and why BF "science" is in the gutter and has the WELL EARNED reputation of same- refer to this post.

**tweet**!!
Personal foul. Unsportsman-like conduct.

[wiiawiwb]

Good will never be good enough.

...and perfection is not realistic.

[Apeman]

from the guidelines for those who haven't read them...

BFF's Golden Rule of Posting
Before posting, please take a moment and familiarize yourself with the BFF Golden Rule of Posting:

Do not post on this site using language or a tone of voice that is different than the language or tone of voice you'd use if the person you're communicating with were sitting right in front of you. Remember that you are a guest here, and your tone should reflect that of a guest at a dinner party, not a wrestling match.

[Teresa]

You can find the rest of the guidelines here.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=374964

Back on topic. Don't make me have to pull this thread over and spank somebody. lol



This post has been edited by Teresa: Jul 13 2008, 07:37 PM

[jimf]

Hi

We were only talking about BF Fingerprints and stuff, What happend to the little thread we had going ??

Peace
Tim

Basically Tim , it's what always happens. See there are quotes thrown around from books and other sources presented as if they were fact based usually on the sole word of one person with no corroboration whatsoever.

In this case we were discussing 'lifting ' print of alleged Bigfoot from alleged rock or other alleged objects being thrown.

Here's where the problem starts , no one even kept the rock in the first place, much less even attempted to dust for prints or anything else. ( likely didn't check the area for other corroborative evidence either based on most of those types reports I've read.) But it's always interjected that there are reports dealing with it , so it must be real. Despite no other actual evidence than the report itself which may or may not have been investigated and even then in many cases not very thoroughly.

It then digresses into an argument over the reality of the reports and of what value they represent, again in most cases by people who want good stories but could care less about detail or accuracy in a report or even if the report is real if it interferes with what they want to believe. Hell, I'll bet you 25 dollars that most of the people arguing on the belief side of it, have never actually seen a Bigfoot , attempted to investigate a report , and even fewer have attempted to follow up on what they allegedly had happen by checking the area for further 'evidence' ( hair/tracks/physical being) or weren't prepared with even a camera in most instances of where they did have a "maybe" or "possible" something happen.
Still want to call themselves "Bigfoot researchers " though, it just sound cooler than telling your friend and family that you're the county Tiddly-wink champion.

The other thing I've noted, not just in this thread, but others as well that digress into a belief/skepticism debacle, is that it always falls into the what constitutes evidence debate, however subtle that may be. In this case it's about reports of alleged occurances, when the reasons noted above would show they are not true. If I'm wrong about that , and someone can point out to me where someone actually did lift a Bigfoot fingerprint , that was proven ( I'll settle for even likely) to be such off of a rock or other thrown object, please educate me on it. The exposed fakes by Hallmark don't count , and if you think they do, then you need to educate yourself first , not others.

But here , my dear Tim, comes the tricky part. When you have only someones word that something happened, which is then to varying degrees of accuracy investigated and published , and then repeated and published again though this time missing a word here, a sentence there , how accurate is it in reality? And exactly how does it constitute anything evidentiary when the original intent of the report may at that point be lost , ( and that's if was even investigated at all.)

I also don't recall anyone of a skeptical nature ( myself included) asking for perfection , but as BM in my opinion noted about good not being good enough , do better if you want it taken seriously. Not talk about it. Do.

There are, as oft said a lot of expectations regarding Bigfoot, and what is considered " evidence" to be better than it is, to have it taken more seriously by science or other authorities , but the burning question is, have you actually done anything about it ? When you go out do you carry a camera/ Video cam ? Tape measure? Hydrocal ? Do you even go out ? Because quite frankly , the biggest problem in the Bigfoot field as far as expectations and suggestions go, is that there is someone else who who will do it for you so you don't have to.

No perfection is not likely attainable or realistic , but better certainly is . And if you're fine with how things are done , how 'evidence " is presented and how it's not taken seriously, by all means feel free to sit here arguing the same old thing ( written or done by someone else) and defend it's reality for the next ten years if you want. Because IMO that's exactly what you're going to be doing.

Now before anyone gets off on some kind of stupid "scoftic" or "armchair researcher" remark realize a couple of thing, I've probably investigated more reports than you, spent more time in the woods than you, and been "researching" Bigfoot longer than you. I've been involved in , heard, seen and been part of some things you probably only wish. I don't say that as a matter of bragging or out of some false sense of ego. I say that because I'm the dumb-ass who stupid enough to go running down a 65 foot steep-assed river bank in the dark in an attempt to catch either a hoaxer or the real deal. Take it for what it's worth and believe or don't that fact as you see fit , there are people who know and people who never will.

One last thing ( as if anyone cared at this point ) regarding:

Do not post on this site using language or a tone of voice that is different than the language or tone of voice you'd use if the person you're communicating with were sitting right in front of you. Remember that you are a guest here, and your tone should reflect that of a guest at a dinner party, not a wrestling match.

I've said it before. Don't assume what my tone, mannerism or context is unless you can see me or hear my voice. The only tone designation is the one that you've assigned to me in your own mind and may not be how I'm speaking or thinking.

[RogerKni]

You've apparently never investigated a Bigfoot report. Many of the fake reports include not just one, but several details, that can be found in other reports or single one's that are reported and merged into a Bigfoot collage in an attempt to make the report "seem" more real or viable to a bad investigator or people who want to believe just a little to badly based on their opinion and not what the facts) or lack of) represent.

I realize that. That's why I stated:

the context of these strange elements occurring together strengthens the entire report. (Or at least they did when Green was collecting reports, before knowledge of the pattern of a typical encounter report became widely publicized.)

you have no critical thinking skill,

Was it your wonderful critical thinking skill that led you to ignore my inconvenient qualification above?

Ok let’s look at your supposed disclaimer then for a minute. Which I didn't ignore, but you seem to think that I did.

(Or at least they did when Green was collecting reports, before knowledge of the pattern of a typical encounter report became widely publicized.)

What criteria are you using to determine even your disclaimer, do you have a specific date in mind?

Yes, the year—1978—that Green published his Sasquatch: The Apes among Us.

And since it's your own argument that you're trying to save without the supportive facts to back it up,

There’s a difference between not having facts and not providing the publication date of a cited source. In what you wrote above, you ignored my source-citation for the sake of a cheap point-scoring attempt. As a result of this and similar cheap-shot remarks of yours that I cite below, I’m tuning you out (filtering you) after this exchange.

The sort of response I’d have made in your place would have been this: “I’m assuming you are alluding to Green’s 1978 opus, Apes among Us, correct?” If so … [and I’d then have gone on with whatever objections I had to using that as a cutoff date].

It should have been obvious what I was referring to, because that was the book I referenced earlier in the thread when citing his statistics on rock-throwing incidents, and because that is Green’s magnum opus—and hence the book one can infer is being alluded to when a non-specific reference like “Green’s Book” is made. Its date of publication is a matter of common knowledge, since I assume every Bigfooter has a copy. It’s also his most recent book (aside from his recent re-issue, The Best of Sasquatch/Bigfoot).

how are you determining when something became common knowledge regarding alleged Bigfoot incidents? Are you going by the criteria of Pre-1970 reports? Earlier? Or basing it on published works alone by Green and others?

I’m basing it on Green’s book, which contains the following introductory paragraph at the start of Chapter 25, which summarizes the statistics he’d collected:

It should be obvious that the numbers cannot be terribly accurate, since they originate in a great variety of stories, some of which are sure to be mistaken, or made up, and since they have reached me by a variety of direct and indirect routes.

If it is any comfort, I once did a study on a wide variety of points, comparing percentages obtained while using only those stories which I thought should be reliable, and those obtained using every report in the file. The differences were insignificant, in almost every case. I can’t say whether that proves that the doubtful reports are as accurate as the good ones, or the other way around. …

The detailed study was completed in June 1976, when I had 1,350 reports.

On page 13, Green implied that he got into Bigfooting in 1957. Presumably his reports also included a fair number of reports from dates prior to that year. It’s too bad he didn’t give a breakdown by time period for his reports. (E.g., “1955-59: 10%,” etc.) Ideally there should have been two columns, one for date of the encounter and another for the date the incident was reported. It would be interesting to see if there was a trend over time in the features reported that suggested that more copycat reports were being filed. (I hope whoever inherits his computerized files will attempt such an analysis.)

For instance, was there an increase over time in the % of reports containing standout elements of encounters—dramatic or highly notable features that a TV producer would tend to disproportionately select to give his audience Hot Stuff, and that would stick in a viewer’s mind--as opposed to the more forgettable features? If so, that would indicate a copycat contamination problem. Examples of standout features would be odor, rock-throwing, loud howls, and maybe stick-banging. Comparatively reclusive features would be hair color and length, palm color and size, and degree of stockiness.

Since the seventies were the height of Bigfoot mania, at least in terms of TV specials and book sales (of books by Byrne and Green, primarily), it’s likely that some reports were contaminated, or inspired, by details of accounts of encounters that had appeared in the media.

The way to get to the bottom of this, or at least to peel off a few layers of the onion, would be (as I suggested a few hours ago) to intensely examine a lot of Bigfoot-reporters psychologically, check their backgrounds, and subject their accounts to intense scrutiny. That would give us at least a ballpark figure for what % of reports delaminate under examination and can be considered either “bad” or “unreliable.”

I haven’t done any witness-interviewing myself, but I’m aware that it’s dangerous to trust any particular witness implicitly. One of the posters here, who’d done a lot of digging-up of witnesses in his area with ads on bulletin boards, etc. told me how disillusioned he was when he discovered that some of the witnesses whom he’d considered golden embroidered their stories when he re-interviewed them a few yours later. That doesn’t necessarily mean (to me) that their whole story was made up—maybe the witnesses just got tired of hearing themselves say the same damn thing every time. But, when dealing with this phenomenon where so much is uncertain, one wants to give credence primarily, or maybe exclusively, to witnesses who have strictly down-to-earth, just-the-facts personalities, not those with a creative streak.

However, I think there is some safety in numbers—i.e., in a large collection of reports, such as Green and Bindernagel have amassed.

You have to keep in mind that several of the reports at that time that are published in both the Media and book format came in through written correspondence (mail service) as is noted at several points in the published material throughout the books.

Green appeared from time to time on a talk show in Vancouver, which led to listener-witnesses contacting him with their accounts. Probably the accounts sent to him by mail by other Bigfoot researchers in the sixties and seventies made their way into his files as well.

So no, Roger I didn't ignore it at all.

OK, let me rephrase that: Your response ignored my qualification. It implicitly dealt only with relatively recent encounter reports, because it used the present tense and it charged me with inexperience in interrogation. And I know where you’re coming from on this matter, from your famous post a few years ago of a phony but authentic-sounding report that you made up for illustrative purposes. You emphasized there that it would be easy for a hoaxer to cobble such a story together after browsing the Internet. Such a readily accessible source of thousands of reports and their typical story elements wasn’t available at no cost back in the day. Therefore my qualification was very germane, and it was disingenuous of you to fail to quote it.

On your part it's just a very weak argument, and one that you've made before (more than once) when the facts you attempt to introduce do not fit the facts or reality of what really occurred or what was actually written in the text.

What’s a very weak argument? Where have I used it, whatever it is, more than once? You’re the one who chided me for not being specific enough in my citation of Green’s book, but you’ve provided nothing specific here.

That's one of the reasons you are supposed to, for the sake of clarity, quote the entire text and bold the parts that you take issue with. It helps to keep it grounded in truthfulness and in context.

OK, here’s your entire quote:

And seriously dude. loose the constant "scoftic" remark it does nothing but make you sound like you have no critical thinking skill, and fall back on that as a psychological ploy when anything else you've presented is lacking.

What I did was to reply to the assertions in that comment one phrase at a time, in four pieces. The entire comment was present and could easily be reconstructed by a reader. It wouldn’t have worked to boldface the part I disagreed with as you suggest, because I disagreed with four parts, so bolding four phrases would only have amounted to clutter—nearly the whole paragraph would have been bolded. It’s easier on the reader for him not to have to repeatedly refer back to a whole paragraph, or to try to keep the whole thing in mind at once.

I wish other posters would use this technique as well—it makes things easier to follow, and makes it easier to quote and respond to the appropriate bits in a Reply. Otherwise, when there are four points in a paragraph, and the Replying poster wants to respond to a few of them, or even to all of them, the quoted material and response and response-to-the-response can get spread across several screens, because small bits are not being dealt with one at a time, and because the responder often has to insert context-establishing “lead-ins” to keep the reader on the rails. I don’t employ this technique to obfuscate, as you insultingly asserted, but to clarify.

Anyway, getting back to the specific paragraph I supposedly mutilated with an out-of-context quotation, what need was there for any context in the use I made of it? The phrase I quoted implied that you, in contrast to me, possess critical thinking skill, did it not? So I’m entitled to quote your pretension against you when I detect one of your transgressions.

Your attempt to manufacture a comeback on this issue is disgraceful.

Until 2008, I was pretty sparing in my use of scofticism. Your claiming that I use it constantly is false--it's merely a sneer.

Using the search on the forum and eliminating the last six months from the equation indicates that you used the word or a derivative of it (Scoff/scoftic etc.) for nearly four pages worth of posts. Hardly sparing usage at all by my count.

About 18 months ago I did a thorough search of my original posts for instances in which I used the S-word in any of its variants. I computed a lot of statistics and either posted it, or saved it to one of my documents. Unfortunately, an hour of searching for it has been unsuccessful.

What I recall is that about 10% of my posts qualified, but only half of them contained the word in the post itself—the other half contained it in a post of mine that I’d quoted in a subsequent post. So, if I used the word in only 5% of my posts, that’s a low rate of use. Of course, since I’ve made over 4000 posts, the absolute number would be high—something like 200. But that doesn’t disprove my contention that I’ve rarely (5% of the time) used the term.

That's also not including the base word of skeptic or skepticism that you tried to derive scoftic from which was used in a negative fashion toward counter arguments when your attempted facts could not be supported.

It’s natural to have some neutral term to use to refer to disbelievers—and skeptic is the standard term. Of course I use it in a negative fashion, because I disagree with their position. But I haven’t used it in a sneering fashion to dismiss an argument I couldn’t cope with otherwise, as you assert. You’ve “lost me” as a reader of your posts with this sort of nasty and unscrupulous misrepresentation.

"Make you sound like" implies that it sounds that way to everyone, and that you're speaking for some sort of silent majority here. I doubt it--and I think it's magnificently presumptuous of you to say so.

Could you point out where exactly I said I spoke for anyone else but myself? I think it's magnificently preposterous of you to infer that my words stated I did or ever have.

You didn’t specifically state that “everyone here thinks it makes you sound like you have no critical thinking skill …” OTOH, you didn’t specifically state that “I think it makes you sound like you have no critical thinking skill …” By leaving out that qualification, you were implying that you were making an objective observation that anyone would agree with. It was like saying, “You sound like Donald Duck”—the implication of which is that the person being addressed sounds that way to everyone. But I guess I over-reacted a bit here, since you were only talking about appearances (“sound like”).

As for what it makes me sound like TO YOU, or to a scoftic, why should I care?

Sooo glad we have you arguing for the pro-Bigfoot side of things. Were you not the one who brought it up in the first place ? So if I'm understanding this sentence right, your musing are only for those who "believe" both what you write as factual or in the reality of Bigfoot already? See Roger two can play at the word game as you did above. In this case it would look like I'm assuming that is what you meant, but in my case I'm basing it on what you actually wrote in reply, instead of what I wanted it to mean because I had a weak argument.

That’s another willful misrepresentation, perhaps the worst yet. All I was saying was that I wasn’t going to abandon the use of my term because my targets think, or purport to think, that it indicates I lack critical thinking skills, and therefore makes me look bad in their eyes. I don’t care for their good opinion. I’d rather not have it. Your attempt to stretch that into something with wider implications is disgraceful.

I do not throw the term scoftic around as a mere "boo-word" when I have no argumentative substance. That's what scoftics wish were the case. Nor do I usually employ it as a direct attack on some other poster. (The exchange here is an exception.) Rather, I usually employ it in an educational sense, when illustrating argumentative tactics that are part of movement-Skepticism's bag of tricks. In my post above, I stated that the attempt to rule out indirect proof is "irrational rationalism," which it is. (That was Robert Anton Wilson's term for the phenomenon. I like my briefer neologism, scofticism.)

Uh, Pretty much, yeah you do. See above regarding nearly 4 pages of usage or it's like. Or use the search function yourself and verify what I said was accurate and factual. I think you'll find that it is.

Four pages sounds like a lot, out of context. More misrepresentation.

Most "skeptical" criticism of Bigfootery is foolish (irrational), knavish, or both, and deserves to be exposed for what it is—scoffing in sophistical disguise. This exposure is more important than anything to do with Bigfoot.

Regarding the bolded part, ( See? To keep it in context with the entire sentence. whistling.gif ) Isn't what you're doing the exact same thing , just on the pro-side of Bigfoot ?

But I’m not an uncritical believer, and you’ve been here long enough to know that. I don’t swallow everything that comes down the pike. For instance:

• I virtually never read or comment on sighting reports—at least not more than a few non-committal sentences. I haven’t gone into rah-rah mode very often. (I did get my hopes up unduly about the Manitoba footage—but that was because I expected it to be as clear as Moneymaker implied it would be.)
• Ditto for blobsquatches.
• I avoid speculating on Bigfoot’s possible anthropological antecedents—mainly because I think they’re all too much of a “stretch.”
• I’ve taken a fence-sitting position on pieces of evidence that have subsequently come under a cloud, like the Memorial Day footage, the Redwoods footage, the Skookum cast, the Penn and Teller hoax, etc. I even gave Dan Perez a paragraph to use in his issue devoted to feedback on DesertYeti’s critique of the Skookum cast, in which I said I was leaning toward disbelief as a result of reading it.
• I’ve vigorously criticized some purported evidence, such as Loren Coleman’s Fruit Giant poster from the 30s. (I said it was based on legends of European giants.)
• I criticized numerous points in Meldrum’s book.
• As a copy editor, I’ve made several “skeptical” observations about authors’ overstatements and tried to have them employ more cautious phraseology.
• I’ve posted a 23-item list here on 23 Reasons Why Bigfoot’s Unlikely, and have expressed only a qualified “belief” in Bigfoot. (See my “I’m of two minds” passage in my latest reply to LT, above.)
• I expressed caution about one piece of possible evidence I found and posted: a twisted tree—and disbelief in an accompanying stack of rocks, which looked too neat and highly stacked.
Etc. This is off the top of my head, so I’ll probably think of several more items later.

You can call me skeptical, "scofftical" or lump me ( or anyone) in wherever you want ,

I don’t consider you a scoftic, because your criticisms aren’t based primarily on a knee-jerk display of the attitudes and platitudes inculcated by the Skeptics movement. If I considered you one of them, my wording would have been different. I’d have added the two boldfaced letters to what I wrote, “As for what it makes me sound like TO YOU, or to any scoftic, why should I care?” Instead, I distinguished you from them.

but the truth of it is that there are a great many reports and other evidence ( term used loosely) that does not stand up in a lot of cases to even the most cursory scrutiny when it is looked at. That has been proven time and again by Tube, Wolftrax, Desertyeti and several others that have dared to look at the so called evidence or experiment with the parameters and likelihood of it being factual.

Oh sure, I’m not arguing against reasonable, informed skepticism. I applaud the efforts of those sorts of people who’ve exposed, or anyway cast doubt on, dubious claims. I even applauded Matt (Tube) when he shared with me his whiskerless Patterson photo, not because I thought it was really whiskerless, but because I thought his find displayed a keen eye and a questing spirit. I didn’t get offended because it cast doubt on the PGF.

(FYI, according to MK Davis, when a positive film like Kodachrome 2 is copied, contrast in enhanced—IOW, darks get darker and whites get whiter. In addition, the shot of Patterson casting the track was made in sunlight and overexposed—i.e., washed out. (Compare the intensity of the color of the plaid shirt in both images to see the difference.) These account for the washing out of RP’s whiskers. They can be seen in the image Chris Murphy sent me, and which I posted here, which he copied from the original strip and which shows his whiskers well. They aren’t as dark as in the image of him under the tree, but that’s only to be expected because of the differing amounts of exposure.)

So that being the case should the opposite of "scofftic" be : Intellectual bullshitter? Because for most of what you are arguing for it fits.

What I think of how you are arguing couldn’t be printed.

And regarding the original intent/ question of this thread to try and keep things somewhat on topic. I know of only one person who has asked/attempted to lift prints from an alleged rock incident. I do not think it worked though, which still leaves the matter at ground zero as far as value other than interesting or one more thing in a great many "possibles" or "could be " category with no facts or proof to back it up.

I think possibles add up. Someone said, “Three possibles make a probable, three probables make a certainty.” Here’s another quote in the same vein:

Good attorneys … claim that effective cross-examinations are usually a collection of little probables rather than one great telling point that wins the whole thing.

I think that the Bigfoot mystery has more to do with the sort of problem-solving involved in legal matters than it does with science, which primarily deals with hard stuff it can get its hands on. The fact that it can’t come to grips with an episodic, mostly anecdotal phenomenon like Bigfoot is a result of the limitations of scientific inquiry, at least as defined by today’s scientific culture.

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Jul 14 2008, 01:38 AM

[RedRatSnake]

Now before anyone gets off on some kind of stupid "scoftic" or "armchair researcher" remark realize a couple of thing, I've probably investigated more reports than you, spent more time in the woods than you, and been "researching" Bigfoot longer than you. I've been involved in , heard, seen and been part of some things you probably only wish. I don't say that as a matter of bragging or out of some false sense of ego. I say that because I'm the dumb-ass who stupid enough to go running down a 65 foot steep-assed river bank in the dark in an attempt to catch either a hoaxer or the real deal. Take it for what it's worth and believe or don't that fact as you see fit , there are people who know and people who never will



One last thing ( as if anyone cared at this point ) regarding: I've said it before. Don't assume what my tone, mannerism or context is unless you can see me or hear my voice. The only tone designation is the one that you've assigned to me in your own mind and may not be how I'm speaking or thinking.

On the first statement, Jim : Thats why i always take the time to read and absorb your posts

Secondly : No one should just blurt out a false thought like that cause they feel the tone is no too there liking, If you feel like it might be out of line, Use the PM and ask the member whats going on........ Thats what it is there for, I use it all the time, It works . . . .

Peace
Tim